House Calendar No. 332. 

6l8T Congress, I HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, j Report 
Sd Session. ) ( No. 1951 . 


EXPENSE OF PROCEEDINGS ON APPEAL, ETC. 


January 20, 1911. —Referred to the House Calendar and ordered to be printed. 


Mr. Clayton, from the^Committee on the Judiciary, submitted the 

following 

REPORT. 

[To accompany S. 6386.] 

The Committee on the Judiciary, to whom was referred the biU 
(S. 6386 ) to diminish the expense of proceedings on appeal and writ 
of error, or of certiorari, submit the following report: 

The title of the bill clearly indicates its wise and commendable 
purpose. There can be no doubt that this bill if enacted into law 
will greatly diminish the expense of proceedings on appeal and writ 
of error, or of certiorari. 

The costs which will be avoided in the circuit court of appeals, as 
well as the costs which will be avoided in the Supreme Court of the 
United States, are specified in the brief and argument submitted to 
your committee by William PI. Gorham, Esq., which brief and argu¬ 
ment is hereto attached and made a part of this report. 

Your committee report back the bill with the recommendation that 
it do pass. 


Brief of the Seattle Bar Association, in Support of Senate Bill No. 6386. 

To the Committee on the Judiciary, United States House of Representatives: 

The Seattle Bar Association, through its committee on Federal legislation, in support 
of Senate bill No. 6386, respectfully presents for your consideration the following: 

I. 

Under the practice now prevailing, at least in the ninth Federal circuit, the costs 
on appeal or writ of error in the circuit court of appeals, exclusive of docket fee and 
cost of taking testimony in that court, are: 

First. Cost-df certified copy of the record in the trial court. 

Second. Cost of printing the record in the circuit court of appeals. 

ThirL Cost of copying original papers on file, for printer’s use in printing record. 
Fourth. Fee of 25 cents a page to the clerk of the circuit court of appeals for super¬ 
vising the printing, indexing, etc. 







2 


EXPENSE OF PROCEEDINGS ON APPEAL, ETC. 


And if a further review of the case is sought in the Supreme Court of the United 
States, the further costs are, exclusive of docket fee: ^ 

Fifth. Cost of certified copy of the record from the circuit court of appeals. 

Sixth. Cost of printing the record in the Supreme Court. _ * 

Seventh. Fee of 15 cents a folio to the clerk of the Supreme Court for supervising 
printing, etc. ^ _ _ . , • , 

These seven iteihs of cost are in addition to the original costs in the trial court where, 
at least in the w'estern district of Washington, ninth Federal circuit, in admiralty, bank¬ 
ruptcy, and equity cases, the cause is submitted on hearing on its merits to the trial 
court upon the report of the commissioner, referee in bankruptcy, or inaster or examiner 
in chancery, as the case may be, which report consists of a typewritten transcript of 
the testimony. 

Thus the parties to the cause, among them or some one of them, in a cause tried in 
the United States district or circuit court and going for review to the United States cir¬ 
cuit court of appeals and to the Supreme Court of the United States, must pay for the 
record five times as follows: 

First. The stenographer’s transcript of the testimony to be used on the hearing 
on the merits. This is at the rate of 15 cents a folio for the original and 5 cents a 
folio for copy, exclusive of per diem for attendance by the commissioner, at $3; by 
the master in chancery, at $20. (See Exhibits A, B, and C, hereto attached.) 

Second. A certified copy of the record, including transcript of testimony to the 
circuit court of appeals. (Rule 14 and admiralty rule 5, of circuit court of appeals, 
ninth circuit. See Exhibit D hereto attached.) 

Third. The printing of the record in the circuit comd of appeals (rule 23, circuit 
court of appeals, ninth circuit; see Exhibit D hereto attached), in addition to cost 
of copying original papers on file, for printer’s use. (Rule 23, subdivision 3, of cir¬ 
cuit court of appeals, ninth circuit. See Exhibit D hereto attached.) 

Fourth. A certified copy of the record from the circuit court of appeals to the 
Supreme Court. (Rule 8 of the Supreme Court. See Exhibit E hereto attached.) 

Fifth. The printing of the record in the Supreme Court. (Rule S, 10, 24 of Supreme 
Court. See Exhibit E, hereto attached.) 

II. 


To illustrate the application of these rules of court we submit the figures as to costs 
in three concrete cases, as certified by the clerks of the courts, as follows: 

First case: In the case of The Moran Company v. The Chesley Tow Boat Company 
^d the tugs Tillicuin and Hamid C., in the United States District Court, Western 
District of Washington, in admiralty, which was heard on its merits in that court and 
reviewed on appeal in the United States Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit the 
costs for the record (which is exclusive of witness fees and clerk’s docket fees’and 
marshal s fee) were as follows: 


District court: 

(а) Commissioner’s fee for transcript of testimony (Exhibit F hereto at¬ 

tached). 

(б) Certified copy transcript of record, on appeal'(Exhibit‘ g, hereto at- 

. 302.00 

Circuit court of appeals: 

(c) Printing record, etc. (Exhibit H hereto attached). 408. 50 

In this case the second item (h) of $302 was an unnecessary expense and could have 
ScS "" by the ctok ot the 

Second case: In the case of Henry Cowell v. John S McMillin et in iho 
States Circuit Court, Western District of Washington in en^v wbtoh ^ ^ 

Its merits m that court, and is now on review on^appeal in the TTnltPrl 

Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, the costs of the rS wMch iFpI H 

fees, and clerk’s docket fees, and marshal’s fees) wereVs follows: ^ witness 

Circuit court: 

^hereto”att?cLd) ‘-'“-y (Exhibit J, 

Complainants. 

Defendants. . $1,014.80 

. 888.05 


“PI'""' (Exhibit K, hereto 

Circuit court of appeals: . 1,830.20 

(c) Printing of record, etc. (Exhibit L, hereto attached). 2 , 4(15 00 

iSl! 













EXPENSE OF PROCEEDINGS ON APPEAL, ETC. 


3 


In this case the seccnd item (b) of $1,836 was an unnecessary ex])ense and could 
> have been avoided had the law permitted the printing of the record by the clerk of 
; the trial court, as ])roposed by Senate bill 6386. 

Third case: In the case of O’Callighan et al. v. O’Brien et ah, in the United States 
circuit court for the district of Washington, which was heard on its merits in that 
.T court, and on review on appeal in the United States circuit court of a])peals, ninth 
circuit, and reviewed on appeal and by writ of certiorari in the Supreme Court of the 
United States, the costs of the record (which is exclusive of witness fees and clerk’s 
docket fees and marshal’s fees) were as follows: 


Circuit court: 

(a) Fee of commissioner and stenographer in Ireland and examiner in 

Seattle, against complainant. $382. 60 

(b) Fee of master in chancery, against defendant. 595. 80 


Total (Exhibits M, N, hereto attached). 978. 40 

(c) Certified copy of transcript of record on appeal (Exhibit 0, hereto 

attached)... 402.90 

Circuit court of appeals: 

(d) Printing record. 1,469.50 

(e) Certified copy transcript of record from circuit court of appeals to 

Supreme Court (Exhibit P, hereto attached). 688. 60 

Supreme Court: 

(/) Printing record and clerk’s fees for supervising (Exhibit Q, hereto 

attached). 1,600.00 


In this case the items (c), (d), and (e), aggregating $2,561, were an unnecessary 
expense, and could have been avoided had the law permitted the printing of the 
record by the clerk of the trial court, as provided in Senate bill No. 6386. 

III. 

The American Bar Association, at its annual meeting in 1909, adopted the report 
of a special committee to suggest remedies and formulate proposed laws to prevent 
delays and unnecessary cost in litigation, recommending an amendment to section 
698, Revised Statutes of the United States, to accomplish the objects sought by 
Senate bill No. 6386. (Reports of American Bar Association, Vol. XXXIV, 1909, pp. 
83, 84, 587, 588, 609.) 

Section 698, Revised Statutes of the United States, is as follows: 

“Upon the appeal of any cause in equity, or of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, 
or of prize or no prize, a transcript of the record, as directed by law to be made, and 
copies of the proofs, and of such entries and papers on file as may be necessary on 
the hearing of the appeal, shall be transmitted to the Supreme Court : Provided, That 
either the court below or the Supreme Court may order any original document or 
other evidence to be sent up, in addition to the copy of the record, or in lieu of a 
copy of a part thereof. And on such appeals no new evidence shall be received in 
the Supreme Court, except in admiralty and prize causes.” 

The amendment thereto proposed by the American Bar Association is as follows: 

“Upon the appeal of any cause in equity, or of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction, 
or of prize or no prize, and upon any writ of error or of certiorari, 25 printed transcripts 
of the record, and of such part or abstract of the proofs as rules pf court may require, 
and of such entries and papers on file as may be necessary on the hearing of the appeal, 
shall be transmitted to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court shall, by rule, pro¬ 
vide the form and manner of printing such transcripts, and for the payment of the 
expense thereof, and no written or typewritten transcript of the record shall be re¬ 
quired: Provided, That either the court below, or the Supreme Court, may order any 
original document or other evidence to be sent up, in addition to the printed copies of 
the record, or in lieu of printed copies of a part thereof.” 

The position taken by that special committee of the American Bar Association is: 
That the Federal statutes provide that the practice in the circuit courts of appeal shall 
be the same as on appeals to the Supreme Court, and therefore when section 698, Revised 
Statutes of the United States “is attended to it attends to all the rest.” (Reports of 
American Bar Association, Vol. XXXIV, 1909, p. 84.) 

The statute creating the circuit court of appeal, ac-t of March 3, 1891, provides: 

“And all provisions of law now in force regulating the methods and system of review, 
through appeals or writs of error, shall regulate the methods and system of appeals 
and writs of error provided for in this act.” (Sec. 11.) 

And further provides that section 691, Revised Statutes of the United States, and sec¬ 
tion 3 of act of February Ui, 1875, chapter 77, “be, and the same are hereby, repealed; and 










4 EXPENSE OF PEOCEEDINGS ON APPEAL, ETC. 


all acta and parts of acts relating to appeals or writs 
visions for review by appeals or writs of error in the jneeeding sect o ^ 
this act are hereby repealed.” (Sec. 14.) , . i*,, 

The practice, including procedure on appeal, in suits 
the district and circuit courts, on March 3, 1891 , the date of the act * e 

courts of appeal, was, under the provisions of section 913, Revised S 

^(iriccorm ,0 the principles, rules, and usages which belong to courts of^equity 
and admiralty, except where otherwise provided by statute or rules of court made 

pursuance thereof. ‘ la. u,r 

(2) According to the Rules of Practice in Equity and in Admiralty, made 
Supreme ('ourt pursuant to act of Congress, August 23, 1842, chapter 188 (sec. J , 


Section 698, Revised Statutes of the United States (which is a part of chapter 11 
of Title XIII, relating to the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court), provides that tne 
record, as directed by law to be made, on appeal in equity and admiralty causes, 
shall be transmitted to the Supreme Court. . . 

This section (698), exclusive of its provisions relatmg to prize causes, in so tar as 
it is inconsistent with the act of March 3,1891, is repealed by section 14 of the latter act. 

Inasmuch as under the provisions of section 6 of the act of March 3, 1891, the decrees 
of the circuit courts of appeal in admiralty cases are final, the appellate jurisdiction 
of the Supreme Court in admiralty causes was by that act abolished; though the 
circuit courts of appeal may certify to the Supreme Court questions of law and the 
Supreme Court may review any such case by writ of certiorari. 

The provisions of section 698, Revised Statutes of the United States, exclusive of 
prize causes, being inconsistent with the act of March 3, 1891, they were, by the latter 
act, repealed; and thus being repealed, it necessarily follows that the amendinent 
proposed by the American Bar Association, if enacted into law, would be meaning¬ 
less except as to prize cases and would in no way affect or regulate the present methods 
and system of review, at least on appeals in admiralty cases provided for in the act 
of March 3, 1891. 


lY. 


Assuming that the provisions of the amendment as proposed by the American Bar 
Association, if enacted into law, would affect and regulate the present methods and 
system of review by appeal or writ of error in Federal courts, there is still an objection 
to that amendment in this; That it is silent as to whether the printed transcript therein 
provided could be transmitted as the record from the district and circuit courts to 
the circuit courts of appeal, and then suffice as the printed transcript of so much of 
the record as contained therein to be transmitted to the Supreme Court. The pro¬ 
posed amendment being silent on that point would operate to continue in force all 
present rules of court not inconsistent with the provisions of that amendment; and 
such a construction on all could be put as would require a reprinting of the record, or 
rather printing of the record two times, where the case was to be reviewed by the 
circuit court of appeals and the Supreme Court. 

In contrast with this is the Senate bill No. 6386, which specifically provides that 
the record shall be printed by the clerk of the trial court and that this printing shall 
suffice for so much of the record as is therein contained both in the circuit court of 
appeals and the Supreme Court. We submit that Senate bill No. 6386 does in unmis¬ 
takable terms meet the requirements of the situation and, if enacted, will without 
question save litigants the unnecessary^ expense in appellate proceedings now borne 
by them. 

Touching the contention of the special committee of the American Bar Association 
that the Federal statutes provide that the practice on appeal in the circuit court of 
appeals shall be the same as on appeal to the Supreme Court, and therefore when 
section 698 is attended to it attends to all the rest, your attention is called to the fact 
that while under section 917, Revised Statutes of the United States, power is given to the 
Supreme Court to regulate the whole practice to be used in suits in equityTand admi¬ 
ralty by the circuit and district courts, no such power is given the Supreme Court over 
the practice on the law side of the court which is by Federal statute to be regulated bv 
the State practice. ^ 

Your attention is further called to the fact that the circuit court of appeals has 
departed in some particulars from the practice of the Supreme Court in ea uitv and 
admiralty cases. ^ 

Compare rule 19 of the circuit court of appeals with rule 15 of the Supreme Court 
Compare rule 23 of the circuit court of appeals, ninth circuit, with rule 10 of the 
Supreme Court. 


5 


EXPENSE OF PROCEEDINGS ON APPEAL, ETC. 

Compare rule. 4 in admiralty, of the circuit court of appeals, ninth circuit, with 
admiralty rule 52 of the Supreme Court. 

We respectfully submit: 

First. That the expense of appellate proceedings in Federal courts is greatly and 
unnecessarily enhanced by the existing law and rules of court, enacted and formulated 
to meet conditions prevailing two or more generations ago, still surviving, notwith¬ 
standing the radical change in those conditions. 

Second. That this'unnecessary expense is often prohibitive and always burden¬ 
some to litigants desiring the review of the courts of last resort. 

Third. That knowing the conditions there should be no uncertainty in the remedy 
to be applied to secure relief. 

Fourth, That the provisions of Senate bill No. 6386 in unmistakable terms meet 
the requirements and will afford an adequate remedy to relieve litigants from such 
unnecessary expense.' 

Therefore we respectfully pray that your honorable committee report favorably on 
Senate bill No. 6386. , 

Respectfully submitted. 

The Seattle Bar Association, 

By Committee on Federal Legislation, 

William H. Gorham, Secretary. 

Seattle, Wash., December 31, 1910. 


Exhibit A. 

District court—Admiralty. 

Reference .—Admiralty rule 45 of the United States district court for western district 
of Washington provides as follows: 

“Upon issue being joined, or at any time prior thereto upon cause shown, either 
party may apply to the court for an order of reference, referring the cause to the com¬ 
missioner of this court to take testimony and report the same to this court. The taking 
of such testimony before the commissioner shall be according to the practice and 
course of this court in causes civil and maritime. * * 

(See also adiniralty rule 44 of the Supreme Court of the United States governing 
practice in admiralty causes in district courts.) 

Fees .—Section 847, Revised Statutes of United States, provides as follows: 

“For administering an oath, 10 cents. * * * 

“For attending to a reference in a litigated matter, in a civil cause * in 

admiralty, in pursuance of an order of court, $3 a day. 

“For taking and certifying depositions to file, 25 cents for each folio. * * * 


Exhibit B. 

Circuit Court—Equity. 

Ref^ence .—Rule 52, subdivision 2, of the United States Circuit Court, Western 
District of Washington, provides as follows: 

“At anytime after filing of the replication, and before final hearing, the parties in 
the cause may, by written stipulation filed with the clerk, agree upon the reference 
of the issues in the case to a master. If the master so agreed upon be a standing 
master of the court, the clerk shall forthwith enter an order, as of course, referring the 
issues in the case to such master, and the cause shall thereupon be deemed so referred 
accordingly. If the person agreed upon as a master be not a standing master of the 
court, either party may thereafter apply to the court for an order for such reference, 
and the court will thereupon make such order in the premises as the ends of justice 
may require. If such reference be ordered before the taking of testimony has been 
concluded, the master to whom the case is so referred shall thereafter act as examiner.” 
* * ***** 

Rule 43 of the United States Circuit Court, Western District of Washington, prG- 
vides as follows: 

“The taking of evfdence in equity cases. In the absence of the stipulation men¬ 
tioned in rule 51, the evidence in equity cases may be taken either orally before an 
examiner or upon commission, as provided in equity rule 67; * * 




6 


EXPENSE OF PROCEEDINGS ON APPEAL^ ETC. 


Fees {compensation). —Equity rule 82 of the Suprerne Couit of the United States 
governing the practice in equity in circuit courts provides as lo 

“The circuit courts may a])point standing masters in chancery in their ^®®P^tive 
districts * * * and they also appoint a master pro hac vice 

case. The compensation to be allowed to every master in chancery or is ® ^ . 
in any particular case shall be fixed by the circuit court, in 

regard to all the circumstances thereof; and the compensation shall be^charged upo 
and borne by siu^h of the parties in the cause as the court shall direct. 


Exhibit C. 

Circuit court—Law (with or without a jury). 

Testimony .—Oral and by deposition. If oral, stenographic notes taken, to be 
transcribed in case of review on writ of error. . , i ^ i 

Fees. —Of stenographer. No statute. State or Federal. Fixed by custom as fol¬ 
lows: Ten dollars per day for attendance, 15 cents a folio for original transcript, 5 cents 
a folio for one ribbon copy. 


Exhibit D. 


Circuit Court of Appeals—Equity—Law. 


ILnVs of error, appeal, return, and record. —Rule 14 of the United States Circuit 
Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, provides: 

“(1) The clerk of the court to which any writ of error may be directed shall make 
a return of the same by transmitting a true copy of the record, opinion or opinions 
of the court, bill of exceptions, assignments of error, and all proceedings in the case 
under his hand and the seal of the court * * 

Printing records .—Rule 23 of the United States Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth 
Circuit, provides as follows: 

“(1) All records shall be printed under the supervision of the clerk, and upon the 
docketing of a cause he shall cause an estimate to be made of the expense of printing 
the record and his fee for preparing it for the printer and supervising the printing and 
shall notify the party docketing the case of the amount of the estimate. If the amount 
so estimated is not prom])tly paid over to the clerk and for want of such payment the 
record shall not have been jirinted when a case is reached for argument, the case shall 
be dismissed. 

“(2) Upon payment of the amount estimated by the clerk, 30 copies of the record 
shall be printed, under his supervision, for the use of the court and of counsel. 

“(3) In cases of appellate jurisdiction the original transcript on file shall be taken 
by the clerk to the printer. But the clerk shall cause copies to be made for the printer 
of such original papers sent up under rule 14, section 4, as are necessary to be printed; 
and the whole of the record in cases of original jurisdiction. 

“ (4) The clerk shall supervise the printing and see that the printed copy is prop¬ 
erly indexed, lie shall distribute the printed copies to the judges and the reporter, 
and one or more printed copies to the counsel for the respective parties. 

“ (5) If the expense of printing and supervision shall be less than the amount esti¬ 
mated and paid, the clerk shall refund the difference to the party paying the same. 
If the expense is greater than the estimate the amount of such excess shall be paid 
to the clerk before he shall file the printed record or deliver copies to the parties or 
their counsel. 


.. . .... 7J. * * 

“ (9) The fee of the clerk for preparing the record for the printer, indexin^^ the same 
supervising the printing, and distributing the copies, for each printed page of the 
record and index, 25 cents.” ^ 

Circuit Court of Ai)peals—Admiralty. 

Apostles on appeal to conhdn.—Admiralty rule 4 of the United States Circuit Court 
of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, provides as follows: _ 

“ Section 1. The apostles, on an appeal to this court, shall, in^cases where a treneral 
notice ot appeal js served, * * , ; (2) all the plead¬ 

ings with the exhibits annexed; (3) all the testimony and other proofs adduced in 








EXPENSE OF PROCEEDINGS ON APPEAL, ETC. 7 

Certifying records. —Admiralty rule 5 of the United States Circuit Court of Appeals, 
Ninth Circuit, provides as follows; 

“The appellants shall, within 30 days after giving notice of appeal, procure to be 
filed in this court the apostles certified by the clerk of the district court or in case of 
a special appeal the stipulated record, with the certification by the said clerk of all 
papers contained therein, on file in his office.” 

Printing records. —Rule 23 of the United States Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth 
Circuit, provides as follows; 

“(1) All records shall be printed under the supervision of the clerk, and upon the 
docketing of a cause, he shall cause an estimate to be made of the expense of printing 
the record, and his fee for preparing it for the printer and supervising the printing, 
and shall notify the party docketing the case of the amount of the estimate. If the 
amount so estimated is not promptly paid over to the clerk and for want of such pay¬ 
ment the record shall not have been printed when a case is reached for argument, 
the case shall be dismissed. 

“(2) Upon payment of the amount estimated by the clerk, 30 copies of the record 
shall be printed, under his supervision, for the use of the court and of counsel., 

“(3) In cases of appellate jurisdiction the original transcript on file shall be taken 
by the clerk to the printer. But the clerk shall cause copies to be made for the printer 
of such original papers sent up under rule 14, section 4, as are necessary to be printed; 
and the whole of the record in cases of original jurisdiction. 

“ (4) The clerk shall supervise the printing and see that the printed copy is properly 
indexed. lie shall distribute the printed copies to the judges and the reporter, and 
one or more printed copies to the counsel for the respective parties. 

“(5) If the expense of printing and supervising shall be'less than the amount 
estimated and paid, the clerk shall refund the difference to the party paying the same. 
If the expense is greater than the estimate the amount of such excess shall be paid 
to the clerk before he shall file the printed record or deliver copies to the parties or 
their counsel. 

• ******* 

“(9) The fee of the clerk for preparing the record for the printer, indexing the 
same, supervising the printing, and distributing the copies, for each printed page 
of the record and index, 25 cents.” 


Exhibit E. 

Supreme Court of the United States. 

Writ of error—Return and record—Rule 8. —(1) The clerk of the court to which any 
writ of error may be directed shall make return of the same, by transmitting a true 
copy of the record, and of the assignment of errors, and of all proceedings in the case, 
under his hand and the seal of the court. 

(2) In all cases brought to this court, by writ of error or appeal, to review any judg¬ 
ment or decree, the clerk of the court by which such judgment or decree was rendered 
shall annex to and transmit with the record a copy of the opinion or opinions filed in 
the case. 

Printing record—Rule 10. —fl) In all cases the plaintiff in error or appellant, on 
docketing a case and filing the record, shall enter into an undertaking to the clerk, 
with surety to his satisfaction, for the payment of his fees, or otherwise satisfy him 
in that behalf. 

(2) The clerk shall cause an estimate to be made of the cost of printing the record 
and of his fee for preparing it for the printer and supervising the printing, and shall 
notify to the party docketing the case the amount of the estimate. If he shall not pay 
it within a reasonable time, the clerk shall notify the adverse party, and he may pay it. 
If neither party shall pay it, and for want of such payment the record shall not have 
been printed when a case is reached in the regular call of the docket, after March I, 
1884, the case shall be dismissed. 

* ****** 

(4) In cases of appellate jurisdiction the original transcript on file shall be taken by 
the clerk to the printer. But the clerk shall cause copies to be made for the printer of 
such original papers, sent up under rule 8, section 4, as are necessary to be printed, 
and of the whole record in cases of original jurisdiction. 

Costs. Rule 24.—{7) For preparing the record or a transcript thereof for the printer, 
indexing the same, supervising the printing and distributing the printed copies to the 
justices, the reporter, the law library, and the parties or their counsel, 15 cents per folio. 





8 


EXPENSE OF PEOCEEDINGS ON APPEAL^ ETC. 


Exhibit F. 


United States of America, 

Western District of Washington, ss: 

I, A. C. Bowman, the duly appointed, qualified, and sitting commissioner of the 
United States District Court for the Western District of Washington do hereby cptify 
that cause No. 3498 in the United States District Court for the Western District of 
W^ashington, wherein the Moran Co. was libellant, the Chesley Tow Boat Go, was 
respondent, the tug Tillicum was respondent, and the tug Harold C. was respondent, 
was regularly referred to me as commissioner to take the testirnony and report the 
same to the court; that my fees for taking the testimony under said reference, taxable 
and paid, were as follows: 


Testimony of— 

The Moran Co. 

The Chesley Tow Boat Co 
Claimant of tug Tillicum.. 
Claimant of tug Harold C. 


$65. 00 
13. 20 
10. 30 
8 . 20 


96. 70 

W'itness my hand this 17th day of February, 1910. 

[Commissioner’s seal.] ^ A. C. Bowman, 

Commissioner of United States District Court, 

Western District of Washington. 


Exhibit G. 

United States District Court, Western District of W'ashington. 

[The Moran Co., libellant v. Chesley Tow Boat Co., et ah, respondents. No. 3498.] 

Feb. 17, 1909. Prepared and certified transcript on appeal to clerk of United 
States Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit: 

1,002 folios, at 30 cents. . 

2 certificates, at 70 cents. 

Expressage on transcript. 

United States of America, 

Western District of Washington, ss: 

I, R. M. Hopkins, clerk of the United States District Court, Western District of 
Washington, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct transcript of so 
much of Admiralty Register No. 5, at page 515, of said court, in the above-entitled 
cause, as relates to the taxing of clerk’s fees for preparing and certifying transcript 
on appeal to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit, in said cause. 
Witness my hand and the seal of said court this 17th day of February, 1910. 

[Seal of court.] R. M. Hopkins, 

Clerh of U. S. District Court,Western District of Washington. 


$302. 00 
1. 40 
. 60 


Exhibit H. 

United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. 

^ The Stimson Mill Co., claimant of the tug Tillicum, et ah, appellants, v. The Moran Co. et ah, appellees, 
and The Chesley Tow Boat Co., appellant, v. The Moran Co. et ah, appellees. No. 1691.] 

Certificate of clerk. United States Circuit Court of jLppeals, of expense of printing record 

under Rule 23. 

I, Frank D. Monckton, clerk of the United States Circuit Court of 4ppeal8 for the 
Ninth District, do hereby certify that the total expense of printing 30 copies of the 
printed transcript of record, pursuant to the provisions of rule 23 of the said court 
including the clerk’s fee for preparing the record for the printer, indexing the same’ 
supervising the printing, and distributing the copies in the above-entitled cause 
amounted to $468.50, and that one half of the said expense was paid by W H Gorham 













9 


EXPENSE OF PROCEEDINGS ON APPEAL, ETO. 

Esq., and the otherjhalf by Messrs. Hughes, McMicken, Dovell & Ramsey, on behalf 
or the respective appellants. 

AUest my hand and the seal of the said the United States Circuit Court of Appeals 
tor the Ninth Circuit, at the city of San Francisco, in the State of California, this Slst 
day of December, A. D. 1910. 

[seal.] F. D. Monckton, 

Clerk U. S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 


Exhibit J, 

United States of America, 

Western District of Washington, ss: 

I, Roger S. Greene, the duly appointed, qualified, and acting master in chancery of 
United States circuit court for said district, do hereby certify that cause No. 1413 in 
the United States Circuit Court for Western District of Washington, wherein Henry 
Cowell was complainant and John S. McMillin et al., were defendants, in equity, was 
regularly referred to me as such master to take the testimony and report the same to 
the court; and that my fees for taking the testimony, including stenographer’s fee, 
under said reference, taxable and paid, were as follows: 


Testimony of complainant.$1, 014. 80 

Testimony of defendants. 888. 25 


1, 903. 05 

Witness my hand this 17th day of February, 1910. 

Roger S. Greene, 

Master in Chancery of United States Circuit Court, 

Western District of Washington. 


Exhibit K. 

United States Circuit Court, Western District of Washington. 

[Henry Cowell v. John S. McMillin et al. No. 1413.] 

Jan. 15, 1909. Prepared and certified transcript on appeal to United States 
Circuit Court of Appeals. $1, 836. 20 

United States of America, 

Western District of Washington, ss: 

I, A. Reeves Ayres, clerk of the above-entitled court, do hereby certify that the 
foregoing is a true and correct transcript of so much of Equity Register No. 2, at page 
193, of the above-entitled court in the above-entitled cause, as relates to the taxable 
costs of the clerk of said court for preparing and certifying the transcript on appeal to 
the United States Circuit Court of Appeals, ninth circuit, in said cause. 

A. Reeves Ayres, Clerk, 

By W. D. Covington, Deputy. 

Witness my hand and the seal of said court this 18th day of February, 1910. 

[Seal of court.] A. Reeves Ayres, 

Clerk of United States Circuit Court, 

Western District of Washington. 
By W. D. Covington, Deputy. 


Exhibit L. 

United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. 

[Ernest V. Cowell, appellant, v. John S. McMillin and Tacoma and Roche Harbor Lime Company, a cor¬ 
poration, appellees. No. 1682.] 

Certificate of clerk. United States Circuit Court of Appeals, of expense of printing record 

under rule 28. 

I, Frank D. Monckton, clerk of the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the 
Ninth Circuit, do hereby certify that the total expense of printing thirty (30) copies 

H. Rept. 1951, 61-3-2 










10 


EXPENSE OF PKOCEEDINGS ON APPEAL^ ETC. 


of the printed transcript of record, pursuit to the provisions of rule 23 of the said 
court, including the clerk’s fee for preparing the record for the printer, indexing the 
same, supervising the printing, and distributing the copies in the above-entitled 
cause amounted to twenty-four hundred sixty-five (2,465) dollars, and was paid by 
counsel on behalf of the appellant. ' _ ^ i <• 

Attest my hand and the seal of the said United States Circuit Court of Appeals fo^ 
the Ninth Circuit, at the city of San Francisco, in the State of California, this thirty- 
first day of December, A. D. 1910. 

[seal.] F. D. Monckton, 

Clerl United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. 


Exhibit M. 

In United States Circuit Court, District of Washington. 
[Hannah O’Callighan et al. v. Terence O’Brien et al. No. 943.] 
Complainants' cost bill. 


To fees of commissioner in Ireland. $183. 75 

To fees of stenographer in Ireland. 82. 25^ 

To fees of examiner in Seattle. 116. 60 


382. 60 

United States of America, 

Western District of Washington, ss: 

I, A. Reeves Ayres, clerk of the above-entitled court, do hereby certify that the 
foregoing is a true and correct copy of so much of the cost bill of above-named plain¬ 
tiffs filed in said cause and taxed and allowed by me under rule 70 of said court, as 
relates to taxable fees of commissioner and stenographer in Ireland and examiner in 
Seattle, in said cause. 

A. Reeves Ayres, Cleric. 

By W. D. Covington, Deputy. 

Witness my hand and the seal of said court this 18th day of February, 1910. 

[seal.] a. Reeves Ayres, 

Cleric of the United States Circuit Court, Western District of Washington. 

W. D. Covington, Deputy. 


Exhibit N. 

In United States Circuit Court, District of Washington. 

[Hannah O’Callighan et al. v. Terence O’Brien et al. No. 943.] 

Defendants' cost hill. 

Fees of master in chancery.$595. 80 

United States of America, 

Western District of Washington, ss: 

United States Circuit Court for the Western District 
of Washington, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of so 
much of the cost bill of the above-named defendants filed in said cause and taxed and 
allowed by me under rule 70 of said court, as relates to the taxable fees of master in 
chancery chargeable to defendants in said cause. 

Witness my hand and the seal of said court this 18th day of February, 1910. 

[seal.] Reeves Ayres, 

Cleric of United States Circuit Court, 

Western District of Washington. 
W. D. Covington, Deputy. 














EXPENSE OF PROCEEDINGS ON APPEAL^ ETC. 


11 


Exhibit O. 

In the United States Circuit Court, District of Washington. 

[Hannah O’Callighan v. Terence O’Brien et al. No. 943.] 

1902, December 11. Preparing and certifying transcript on appeal to United 
States Circuit Court of Appeals. $402, 90 

United States of America, 

Western District of Washington, ss: 

I, A. Reeves Ayres, clerk of the United States Circuit Court for the Western Dis¬ 
trict of Washington, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct transcript 
of equity register No. 2, at page 36, of the above entitled court in the above entitled 
cause, as relates to the taxable costs of the clerk of said court -for preparing and certi- 
fj^ing the transcript on appeal to the United States Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth 
Circuit, in said cause. 

Witness my hand and the seal of said court this 18th day of February, 1910. 
[seal.] a. Reeves Ayres, 

Clerk of the United States Circuit Court, 

Western District of Washington. 
By W. D. Covington, Deputy. 


Exhibit P. 

United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. 

[Marie Carrau, appellant, v. Hannah O’Callaghan, otherwise known as Johanna Callaghan, and Edward 
, Corcoran, appellees. No. 925.] 

Certificate of clerk United States Circuit Court of Appeals of expense of printing record 
under rule 23, and of expense of transcript of record on appeal to the Supreme Court of 
the United States. 

I, Frank D. Monckton, clerk of the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the 
Ninth Circuit, do hereby certify that the total expense of printing thirty (30) copies 
of the printed transcript of record, pursuant to the provisions of rule 23 of the said 
court, including the clerk’s fee for preparing the record for the printer, indexing the 
same, supervising the printing, and distributing the copies in the above-entitled 
cause, amounted to fourteen hundred sixty-nine and fifty-hundredths (1,469.50) 
dollars, and that the said expense was paid by Marie Carrau. 

I further certify that the total expense of making and certifying the record on 
appeal in the said cause from the said court to the Supreme Court of the United States 
amounted to six hundred eighty-eight and sixty-hundredths (688.60) dollars, and was 
paid by Messrs. Piles, Donworth & Howe. 

Attest my hand and the seal of the said the United States Circuit Court of Appeals for 
the Ninth Circuit, at the city of San Francisco, in the State of California, this thirty- 
first day of December, A. D. 1910. 

[seal.] F. D. Monckton, 

Clerk United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. 


Exhibit Q. 

[File No. 19244. Supreme Court of the United States. No. 193, Oc'tober term, 1904.] 

Charles H. Farrell, administrator, etc., of Hannah 0^Callaghan, deceased, to James H. 
McKenney, clerk of the Supreme Court of the United States, Dr. 

For all costs on appeal from United States Circuit Court of Appeals for the Ninth 
Circuit taken by Hannah O’Callaghan et al. against Terence O’Brien, administrator, 


etal.: 

Clerk. $587.60 

Cost of printing record and charge for extra copies. 1, 012. 50 

Attorney’s docket fee... 20. 00 




Deposits. 1, 810. 00 

Costs. 1, 620.10 


189. 90 

(Costs in Supreme Court for printing record and supervising printing, $1,600.10.) 















12 


EXPENSE OF PROCEEDINGS ON APPEAL, ETC. 


Addenda to Brief of the Seattle Bar Association in Support of Senate Bill 

No. 6386. 

Since preparing the foregoing brief, Everett P. Wheeler, Esq., of the New York bar, 
chairman of the special committee to suggest remedies and formulate proposed laws 
to prevent delay and unnecessary cost in litigation of the American Bar Association, 
has expressed his satisfaction with Senate bill No. 6386 (in lieu of their Senate bill 
No. 4569, House bill No. 14553) and his willingness to promote its passage. (Exhibit R 
hereto attached.) 

With this indorsement of Senate bill No. 6386 by the accredited committee of the 
American Bar Association, we respectfully urge your honorable committee to report 
Senate bill No. 6386 without amendment to the House of Representatives recommend¬ 
ing its passage. 

Respectfully submitted. 

The Seattle Bar Association, 

By Committee on Federal Legislation, 
William H. Gorham, Secretary. 

January 5, 1911. 


Exhibit R. 

The American Bar Association, 

New York City, Decern,ber 1910. 

Dear Sir: I received at Washington the copy of the brief of the Seattle Bar Asso¬ 
ciation in support of Senate bill 6386. For this I am very much obliged. The com¬ 
mittee of the American Bar Association will be very glad if this Senate bill should 
pass the House. Pray let me know how the matter stands at Washington. Our 
attention was so much occupied with our principal bill that we were not able to do 
anything in regard to the record bill. If you will let me know whether or not this 
bill of yours has been reported by the Judiciary Committee of the House, I can tell 
better what, if anything, I can do to promote its passage. Meanwhile, if you can do 
anything to promote the report from the Committee on the Judiciary of Senate bill 
4568, I should appreciate it highly. 

I inclose you a copy of the last report of the American Bar Association committee. 
The bill referred to is at page 7; our brief in support of the bill is at page 11. 

Yours, faithfully, 

Everett P. Wheeler, Chairman. 

William H. Gorham, Seattle, Wash. 


The American Bar Association, 

New York, January 10, 1911. 

Dear Sir: A bill providing for the diminishing of the expense of certifying and 
printing the record on appeal in the Federal courts has passed the Senate (S. 6386) 
and is now before the Judiciary Committee of the House. 

This covers the same ground as the bill recommended by the American Bar Associa¬ 
tion (H. R. 14553), and its passage would be equally satisfactory to our committee. 
As one has passed the Senate and the other has not, it would seem obvious that the 
bill on this subject which I would urge upon the favorable attention of the committee 
is Senate bill 6386. 

Yours, faithfully, Everett P. Wheeler. 

Hon. Richard Wayne Parker, 

House of Representatives, Washington, D. C. 

o 


LIBRARY OF CONGRESS 



0 028 001 705 A 

J 





